Britain in the 1930s “The Failure of Peace” Peter Howarth [[email protected]] Expanded version November 2018 Abstract This material looks at Britain in the 1930s, tracing the effect of the international situation as it deteriorated towards war in 1939. Events and associated movements are seen in three overlapping phases. The first focusses on a range of attempts early in the decade to create a lasting peace or at least a set of treaties that would avoid a second war that was increasingly feared as the decade proceeded. These failed attempts included and culminated in appeasement of Hitler. The second part examines the British version of fascism, chiefly the British Union of Fascists launched by Oswald Mosely in 1932. This could also be viewed as another failure, by the time fascist leaders were interned in 1940. The final section looks at British reactions to and involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Once the tide had turned against the Republican government in 1938 the belief that a second continent-wide war was then inevitable had become widespread. Contents page Preface Reasons for writing this preface Historic tectonic plates, threats to the human race Migration, populism, nationalism The frivolity of the right, the nostalgia for empire Complexity The 1970s, the shift from the 1970s to the 1980s 2017-17 and the 1930s, comparison of the threats today with the 1930s The press “Make our Planet Great Again” Introduction Primary sources and their interpretation Context Contextual background 1919 – 1932 Political conflicts in the UK Female suffrage International relations and treaties Social conditions The press Peace Disarmament and the League of Nations Anti-French sentiments, British attitudes to France and Germany post-WWI Disarmament and the national press (1932) Party manifestoes (1929-1935) Opinion polls (1937-1939) League of Nations Union (1934-1935) Peace Ballot (1934-1935), public opinion, pacifism Catholic Herald, letters to the editor (1935-1936) Appeasement, German plans to assassinate Hitler prior to 1939 Fascism Fascist views, anti-semitism Supporters, fascist methods Olympia Rally (1934) Press reaction, official reaction Spain English Catholicism, Catholic attitudes to fascism, Archbishop Hinsley versus pro-Republican Catholics Press reporting, reporters’ experiences in Spain Reporting the outbreak of hostilities in Spain Catholic reporting George Steer of the Times Political reaction, public reaction Preface The reason for writing this preface In 2011-13 I studied for a Masters degree in Modern History, writing a dissertation focussing on Britain in the 1930s, entitled ‘The Failure of Peace’. This concentrated, firstly, on the peace movements in the early part of the decade and, secondly, on British attitudes towards Spain and the Spanish Civil War towards the end, by which point there seemed to be a fatalistic acceptance that a second war could not be avoided. A middle section on British fascism, originally intended as a bridge between the two, was omitted in the submitted version because of the word limit. In 2016 I started work on expanding the original text and re-instating the section on fascist views, and in 2017 decided to incorporate this lengthy new preface analysing comparisons between the 1930s and the present day. This was prompted by significant events in that year and explicit parallels being drawn in the press.1 In addition, of the intervening decades, the midpoint of the 1970s could be viewed as showing some of the most positive trends and developments for the future. It could be claimed that the state we are in today is the result of subsequent reversal of these progressive movements. As this revised version is not intended for academic assessment, there is less need here to aim at standard academic objectivity, and this preface is a personal view. For this reason, many of the sources are drawn from non-academic publications such as the London Review of Books, though the reviewers quoted have solid academic credentials. Furthermore, some aspects of the 1930s and the present day are impossible to treat entirely dispassionately. Tectonic plates To consider a modern metaphor2 for the history of the last century, WWI represented a major tectonic shift (producing earthquakes largely localised in northern and southern Europe). But the tensions released didn't settle for the long term and so further movements could be predicted. After WWI pressure again built up, with minor shocks, indicating subterranean fault lines and there grew a depressing sense of inevitability that a much bigger shock was due at some time.3 There were side shocks in unexpected places such as Spain, East Africa and China, which in themselves did not release enough of the pressure building up to prevent the greatest quake of all within 20 years. Reflecting on current prospects for the future raises the question of how well protected we are from major shocks to come. Threats to the human race To understand the serious nature of today’s political uncertainty, it may be useful to set it in a very broad context, and it is not unreasonable to claim that there is no long-term future for the human race without the greatest degree of co-operative effort: the only way to deal with the gravest threats to the whole world. Looking in more detail at the present day, some of the greatest threats or demands on co-operation affecting all populations across the world appear to be: armed conflict and civil war mass migration (politically significant and warranting the section to itself below) predatory global capitalism4 environmental degradation (e.g. drought, the fashion for powerful cars, conspicuous consumption, using up fossil fuels, climate change and extreme weather)5. 1 For example, Paul Mason, in the Guardian 1/8/2016 ‘Are we living through another 1930s?’ 2 The theory of plate tectonics was established by the early 1960s. 3 See The Morbid Age Richard Overy, 2010. 4 See the inequality index reported in LRB 39/20 19/10/2017 p. 23 review of Walter Scheidel ‘The st Great Leveller: violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the 21 century’ (2017): ‘In 2015 the richest 62 persons on the planet owned as much private net wealth as the poorer half of humanity, more than 3.5 billion people.’; this was restated by Bernie Sanders, Guardian 13/1/2018. 5 Those who deny climate change, for example, or propose migration to another planet once we’ve irrevocably wrecked this one, are indulging in irresponsible fantasy. How do these advocates of jumping ship reckon humans will be able to work together in colonising a new planet when they have mass poverty (relative and absolute); as ever, it is the poorest and weakest who will continue to suffer the most, while the rich and strong will always be able to protect themselves and their families; class conflict terrorism exploitation of minorities, women, modern slavery, people trafficking These are, of course, inter-linked, and will only become more severe if uncontrolled and accelerate as co-operative institutions are deliberately weakened. Whatever the analysis of these threats to general stability and peaceful co-existence, the notion that the leadership of Trump, Johnson, Farage, Le Pen and others will provide the answer is delusional. These politicians show little inclination to promote collective action on these largely moral issues. Instead, they try to achieve electoral success through a series of populist messages, including competitive trade protectionism and self-sufficiency, which appear to look forward to the survival of the fittest. Migration A key factor in the EU referendum and Trump’s presidential victory was migration. The issues of economic migration, refugees from war, asylum seekers and legal or illegal migration have become highly contentious and were deliberately conflated by Farage et al to stir up conflict. These are extremely sensitive and can easily be linked to fears about erosion of national identity, security, public finances and fairness in public services (for example, housing). However, if the British, French, Dutch, US and other imperial powers hadn’t wanted foreigners in their countries, they should have stayed at home and not occupied and colonised innumerable other territories around the world with their own (often surplus) people, who were ‘not the best’ (as Trump calls Mexican immigrants to the USA) the colonising powers could produce.6 It is not hard to make comparisons with the Fascism of the 1930s and its reliance in Germany and Britain on anti-Semitism. Even a British Union (of Fascists) candidate (Charles Wegg-Prosser, who failed to win election in 1937) could make the following criticism. He wrote to his leader Oswald Mosley that anti-Semitism is a ‘smokescreen to cloud thought and divert action with regard to our real problems … You sidetrack the demand for social justice by attacking the Jew, you give people a false answer and unloose lowest mob passion … I tried to interest these people in real problems, unemployment, wages, housing, and so on. I watched with dismay the mentality which said “Get rid of Jews, and you will automatically get rid of unemployment, slums, 7 sweating”’. Migration issues should be dealt with very cautiously as, firstly, humanitarian requirements by international agreement; secondly, as administrative matters (for example, short-term sanctuary versus longer-term asylum provisions and immigrant labour) and importantly kept out of party-political confrontations as too explosive. Responsible politicians would do this rather than attempt to take personal political advantage from the controversies. Populism The fissiparous forces now gaining ground in the US and some European countries, most notably in the UK, depend on a newly-confident populist nationalism. Separatist movements in regions within countries, such as Catalonia and Scotland,8 should be differentiated from international divisions, as should nationalist movements for independence from colonial occupation such as Indian and Irish.